Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Well, it was certainly a blatant cross check. Not sure how that wasn't a penalty, or Pronger's trip on Madden. Between those and the two missed high sticks in Chicago (I'm aware that Toews got Briere last night, too), I'm not sure what the Hawks did to get the short end of the stick, but...

two more things:

1, the buttfugglyn nickname isn't meant to be a sign of disrespect. i really like the way he plays, i just don't care to learn how to spell his name.

2, i don't think the second flyer goal was actually a goal. the overhead shot showed daylight between the puck and the goalline, but the camera wasn't looking straight down, and i think the puck was angled just right, so as to show daylight that wasn't there.

between the olympic finals between canadia and the us, and now the SC finals, this has been a pretty great year for high level hockey.

According to NHL Live on NHL Network, Game #3 of the Stanley Cup Final on VERSUS drew a 2.59 national cable rating, which would mark a ratings record for the network, and potentially tie a cable ratings milestone for the NHL.
The 2.6 cable rating is up 35% from VERSUS’ broadcast of the Detroit/Pittsburgh Game #3 last season. It is up 8% from the national rating for Game #3 in 2008, which was aired on NBC. Since national ratings are typically larger audiences than cable ratings, you have to hold back on saying it drew a bigger rating. If the viewer numbers are bigger for VERSUS, however, Game #3 would be the highest rated Game #3 since 2002, when Detroit/Carolina drew a 3.3 on ABC.

The rating potentially ties the 2.6 Carolina/Detroit Game #2 drew on ESPN in that very same 2002 series, and would tie it for second all-time for the NHL on cable (Game #7 of the 1994 Vancouver/NY Rangers series drew a 3.5 on ESPN). I’ll know more as the day goes on, and we should have more official numbers around 4PM, according to the NHL. But this initial report from NHL Live signifies a huge evening for the league.

2, i don't think the second flyer goal was actually a goal. the overhead shot showed daylight between the puck and the goalline, but the camera wasn't looking straight down, and i think the puck was angled just right, so as to show daylight that wasn't there.

I wondered about this, too, but I didn't want to be the Hawks fan crying about it. Is the crossbar exactly above the red line? I honestly don't know this, and two friends of mine who are both more knowledgeable about hockey rules gave me two different answers.

If the bar is exactly above the red line, it might not have been a goal; as STEAGLES says, that would mean the "overhead" camera isn't directly overhead, and a bouncing puck could have a bit of daylight, without actually crossing the plane of the goal. In this case, it MIGHT not have been a goal, but likely still was.

If the bar is behind the red line a few inches, then there's almost no way that was NOT a goal, though.

As a Hawks fan, I think I disagree on the doubt about the Philly goal. Even if the camera isn't directly above, I don't see how it's possible for there to clearly be ice between the puck and the line without the puck being completely over the line. I can see the argument if it's a bouncing puck, but I think even though it was spinning on the edges, it was on the ice as it passed the line (as seen from the inside the goal camera.

What I don't like is that there's no way to stop play and review immediately. Had the Hawks scored, and subsequently had the goal not count because of the replay it would have been outrageous. I understand the concern about stopping the flow of the game, but the Hawks cleared the puck and it would have been a great time to stop play for the review. This should be considered in revising the rule. But just like any other rule change, it'll likely take a team getting screwed by the rule to make a change happen.

One adjustment I'd like to see tonight is moving Byfuglien off the Toews/Kane line. It seems the Flyers are intent on stopping him - NBC/Versus have highlighted that Pronger has been on the ice for like 90% of Buff's shifts. Switch him and Brouwer (so Buff is skating with Sharp and Hossa). If Philly wants to keep Pronger on Buff, it'll help free up Toews and Kane (Brouwer played better than Buff on that line during the season, and he appears back to regular season form now). If Pronger is really out there to bug Toews/Kane (which is what I suspect), Buff might get a better chance or two up front with the 2nd line.

There's two things I don't like about this. I don't like the defensive hit the Sharp-Hossa line will take. Buff's decent at D, but Brouwer's better in my opinion, and I don't like the physical toll that Kane and Toews will take. With Buff out with Pronger, at least you know where Pronger's going to be. It may work, but I'm not sure I'd go about trying it. It's not like Kane and Toews were ineffective last game, or that the Hawks got blown out. One OT game isn't going to make me change my offensive shifting.

Well, I disagree on Buff vs. Brouwer defensively. There's not a significant difference; hell, Buff actually is a defender. And even if you are right, defense from the forwards isn't my concern right now; I'm worried about the scoring from the top line. The Flyers 2nd line is the one generating the majority of the offense - especially in game 2, and they've been matched up with the Hawks top line quite a bit so far, so if Brouwer really is better defensively it helps. If Buff isn't scoring or making space for Toews/Kane, he's doing more harm than good. And it's not like Pronger is just going to be able to hit Kane and Toews because Buff isn't there. He'd have to catch them first, but more importantly, if he's trying to do that it gets him away from the net which is the goal anyway. Buff standing down low, plus Pronger, really limits the space for anyone else to work. Brouwer's big and physical too, but as a more rounded player I think he can help Toews and Kane more.

As for the last game, you should note it was Eager on the ice instead of Buff that led to the Toews/Kane breakaway and goal.

i think switching buttfugglyn and brouwer could be a game changer, but that goes in both directions. if it works to get pronger off of toews and kane, you've still gotta match them up against timonen and coburn. it's a better matchup, yeah, but they were the flyers' top pair two years ago when they put washington in the ditch, and made a run to the ECF (which was only ended when both players were lost for the first 4 games of the series), so it's not gonna be a guaranteed win for the top line.

on the downside, if the matchup the flyers want is pronger on buttfugglyn, then you've just put your most productive line up against (one of) the best Dmen in the world, and clogged the crease with two 240+ lb bodies.

it's a risk. and considering the hawks are up 2-1, i don't know that now is the right time to pull the trigger.

What I don't like is that there's no way to stop play and review immediately. Had the Hawks scored, and subsequently had the goal not count because of the replay it would have been outrageous. I understand the concern about stopping the flow of the game, but the Hawks cleared the puck and it would have been a great time to stop play for the review. This should be considered in revising the rule. But just like any other rule change, it'll likely take a team getting screwed by the rule to make a change happen.

Not quite the same, but something similar happened to the Leafs against the Penguins earlier this year. Game tied at 1, Gonchar scored a goal that went undetected, then hauled down Ponikarovsky on a breakaway and the ref signalled for a penalty shot. However, at the stoppage, video replay discovered the goal, and a Leafs penalty shot simply became a Leafs power play because two goals can't be scored on the same play. For the Leafs, it was a devastating turn of events.

That said, I'm not sure what the solution is to that scenario you describe above. Seems to me the only time to check would be a stoppage...

it's a risk. and considering the hawks are up 2-1, i don't know that now is the right time to pull the trigger.

The line combinations are not set in stone, maybe even moreso with Q than just about any other coach. Sure, the line played great the last two series, but it was only put into place to rattle Luongo. Brouwer was the 3rd guy on that line more than anyone else this year, and he fell off it because of off-ice issues (his dad's illness). Putting him back there just restores the status quo from earlier in the year, so I'm not concerned about chemistry within that line.

i think switching buttfugglyn and brouwer could be a game changer, but that goes in both directions. if it works to get pronger off of toews and kane, you've still gotta match them up against timonen and coburn. it's a better matchup, yeah, but they were the flyers' top pair two years ago when they put washington in the ditch, and made a run to the ECF (which was only ended when both players were lost for the first 4 games of the series), so it's not gonna be a guaranteed win for the top line.

As for the comment, I don't know what 2 years ago has to do with anything. The Hawks are not having problems scoring on any of the Philly D combos (the top 4 are playing about 55 mins/game). What the Hawks are struggling with is the top line against Pronger/Carle. I don't think switching Buff for Brouewer really changes the work Hossa/Sharp are doing. The downside is what exactly - the top line still struggling? On the Flyers side, they've had no issues trying to mix in a 3rd guy on the top line; the other lines are still doing their job and they're trying to get the top pairing going. So my comment could also fit for Philly.

on the downside, if the matchup the flyers want is pronger on buttfugglyn, then you've just put your most productive line up against (one of) the best Dmen in the world, and clogged the crease with two 240+ lb bodies.

And opened up the top line, which is better with Brouwer on it, IMO.

I'm hoping Ladd can play tonight, he's much better on the checking line that Kopecky.

between the olympic finals between canadia and the us, and now the SC finals, this has been a pretty great year for high level hockey.

This!

I'd say that the last Stanley Cup finals, the Olympic Men's hockey tournament (and especially the gold medal game) and this year's Stanley Cup finals have been three AMAZING displays of high quality hockey.

The line combinations are not set in stone, maybe even moreso with Q than just about any other coach. Sure, the line played great the last two series, but it was only put into place to rattle Luongo. Brouwer was the 3rd guy on that line more than anyone else this year, and he fell off it because of off-ice issues (his dad's illness). Putting him back there just restores the status quo from earlier in the year, so I'm not concerned about chemistry within that line.

I can see this. I'm just not sure I want to change anything going into game 4. The Hawks aren't playing horribly, and making a move just for the sake of it is a little crazy for me.

Like you said, Q rolls through his forwards pretty well anyway (which I like). What's Ladd's status? Kopecky plays a good amount of time, and the worst thing they can do is dress Ladd and find out he can't play after 2 shifts.

Had the Hawks scored, and subsequently had the goal not count because of the replay it would have been outrageous.

Why? I mean, I'm thinking about it, and I can find nothing at all outrageous about that scenario. If the Hawks had committed a penalty in that time, it wouldn't have been assessed (the way I read the rule), so they may just as easily have benefitted from it (in some senses).

If you give up a goal and the ref doesn't see, the most fair way to deal with it is to count the goal and re-set the clock to the point the goal was scored. What's outrageous about that?

#512: The solution is to call time as soon as there is not an imminent scoring threat (say, anytime a team would be making a line change).

Lots of scoring chances get generated off bad line changes...

Why? I mean, I'm thinking about it, and I can find nothing at all outrageous about that scenario. If the Hawks had committed a penalty in that time, it wouldn't have been assessed (the way I read the rule), so they may just as easily have benefitted from it (in some senses).

In the play I describe in #512, Gonchar got credit for both a goal AND had to serve a penalty for tripping Ponikarovski during the period between the goal and the whistle.

Why? I mean, I'm thinking about it, and I can find nothing at all outrageous about that scenario. If the Hawks had committed a penalty in that time, it wouldn't have been assessed (the way I read the rule), so they may just as easily have benefitted from it (in some senses).

If you give up a goal and the ref doesn't see, the most fair way to deal with it is to count the goal and re-set the clock to the point the goal was scored. What's outrageous about that?

Well, a penalty and a goal are quite different, so the analogy doesn't hold. But even if it does, what about the situation Papa Squid described in 512?

I don't see how pretending something that happened didn't happen is fair. In basketball, when they review a 3pt shot, they don't go back to that time of the game and replay from then on. I don't know what the answer is here. Perhaps once the puck is out of the offensive zone and regained by the other team (in this case, once the Blackhawks clear it but before Philly dumps it back in), they should stop play. I guess I don't know how they let the ref know they're going to review a goal right now, but there has to be a way to alert them a review is coming so look for a chance to stop play.

And it has nothing to do with it being the Hawks here, I wonder the same situation if the roles were reversed. It's hypothetical anyway, so I'm not really complaining.

So what happens if Philly would have scored later on the PP? Do they review to see that the first goal counted, but not count the 2nd and set the clock back? What if they scored after the PP ended but play hadn't been stopped yet? In the first case, that seems somewhat fair (but not ideal) and the 2nd case seems pretty unfair.

So what happens if Philly would have scored later on the PP? Do they review to see that the first goal counted, but not count the 2nd and set the clock back? What if they scored after the PP ended but play hadn't been stopped yet? In the first case, that seems somewhat fair (but not ideal) and the 2nd case seems pretty unfair.

AFAIK, the protocol from the NHL down has been to reset the clock to when the goal was scored and play on from that point as if nothing ever happened. It's not tricky about a team scoring, what would be tricky is what would happen if someone got injured or there was a significant penalty (high stick, etc).

What if they scored after the PP ended but play hadn't been stopped yet? In the first case, that seems somewhat fair (but not ideal) and the 2nd case seems pretty unfair.

Huh? If they scored again after the power play was over, then yes, you go back to when the score the first goal. The power play ends at that point anyway. The guy comes out of the box on the goal anyway. In fact, if the Hawks had taken another penalty in the interim, it wouldn't have counted. The only time a penalty counts in the interim is if the Flyers take it. I don't have a problem with this. A violation of the rules is a violation of the rules, and you have to do something to make sure that player don't take liberties if they think they're not going to get penalized anyway.

I'd prefer the current system, with a caveat that certain penalties (unsporstmanlike specifically) would still hold for the goal scoring team in interim, but otherwise we pretend that the interim play never happened. That's the most fair way to do it.

what would be tricky is what would happen if someone got injured or there was a significant penalty (high stick, etc).

Injuries can happen at any time, even after the play is dead, so you live with that. But I think any "course of play" penalties shouldn't count. Right now the rule says that if the team who is scored upon commits a penalty, it doesn't count, akin to a delayed penalty. If the scoring team commits a penalty, they serve it, as described in #512. I don't love that rule, but I can live with it.

does anyone else appreciate versus showing the pregame anthems? not so much for the douches in chicago that scream during the star spangled banner, but the lauren hart/kate smith rendition of god bless america is awesome.

very happy to get back to even at this point. a bit of a scare towards the end of the 3rd, but they got the win, so i'll take it.

it was a relatively easy game for the core 4. pronger and coburn were only at 28 minutes. timonen at 27, carle at 24. pronger was a +4 on the night, patrick kane a -4.

it's a little concerning that the hawks' PP is starting to be a threat. with that unit having relatively little impact, the series is still only even, so it's hard to be truly bombastic at this point.

one last thought, is anyone keeping track of how many penalties chris pronger has drawn in the defensive zone? it's clear the refs are watching him like a hawk, but it seems like they're only catching the retaliation to his ministrations.

Cheering during the anthem was awesome at Chicago Stadium. It should have died there. An antiseptic arena can't give off the vibe that makes something like that work. The United Center should be a place for pom-pom or towel shaking and fans wearing shirts of the same color.

(Did the singing during the anthem tradition die for a while? I don't recall it happening at all until the last couple years. Or maybe it did and there were fewer people at the games to do it and nobody else cared about the Blackhawks anyway.)

(Did the singing during the anthem tradition die for a while? I don't recall it happening at all until the last couple years. Or maybe it did and there were fewer people at the games to do it and nobody else cared about the Blackhawks anyway.)

I'm pretty sure they've always done it during the playoffs, but not always during the regular season.
Given how bad Chicago was, there weren't any playoff games for a long time (hence the fact that no one talked about it).

I'm not sure I understand the fascination with Tomas Kopecky. He was essentially swapping in and out with Adam Burish, depending on how Quenneville felt in the morning, and now he's getting good minutes on one of the top three lines. Brouwer strikes me as a better player, particularly a much better shooter, and I don't think there's much defensive difference between the two.

Regarding the game, the Hawks' first period was the best period they've played all playoffs long. And despite a couple of tense moments, they never lost the two-goal cushion. Two cracks at the Cup -- can't ask for much more.

I'm pretty sure they've always done it during the playoffs, but not always during the regular season.

No -- it's always done during the regular season.

And seriously? It's "disrespectful"? LOL. Okay. Certainly not as classy as having a country singer butcher an already terrible God Bless America song, but...

My father was a bombardier in WW II, stationed in England and flying over Germany againt enemy fire, and is still very much with us.

I don't understand why you bought this up. How do you think this gives you special credibility to tell other people how to decide how to treat the national anthem? half the people here have direct relatives who served in WWII. Thousands of people in Chicago did..some of them may even have been WWII veterans.

lauren hart singing god bless america is a show stopper.

It is a show stopper. Nothing stops a show more than that jingoistic dirge.

I'm pretty sure they've always done it during the playoffs, but not always during the regular season.
Given how bad Chicago was, there weren't any playoff games for a long time (hence the fact that no one talked about it).

It's AWLAYS been done in Chicago. Sure, it may have gotten less attention when the games were more sparesly attended. But it's a Hawks thing, and it's awesome. I really can't point to the exact starting point, and I'm sorry to hear that the fans of other teams consider it offensive or what not, but it's something that's respected across the league. It gives me chills every time.

---

As for the game tonight (and Friday night), I'll get into more details tomorrow morning - sober - but the absolute best part of tonight is Pronger's -5. He may have not earned the hooking on the 5th goal, but it makes up for all the other bullshit he's gotten away with. Which, by the way, is this quote: they're calling everything the hawks do to him. to get all of it, they've gotta be looking hard at him damn near all the time. really implying what I think it's implying? Because Pronger is the diriest player, by far, in this series, and he's only seen 4 minutes in the box (or 6, i forget if he got 2 tonight). Or do I really need to search youtube for all the cross checking, tripping, slashing, and high sticking he's gotten away with so far?

THIS is the Hawks team I expected, at least offensively. Still had too many defensive breakdowns, and too many juicy rebounds by Niemi. But this team isn't going to lose to this Flyers team. Now, I really don't expect them to come out and play as well as they did in the first again, but damn, that team isn't losing to anyone. Anyway, time for another beer...

There was a lot of chippiness last night. A ton of high sticking and cross checking by both teams. I felt, watching the game last night, that this series has gotten borderline dirty. May just be the way all contested playoff hockey series get, though. I wouldn't know.

Pronger didn't have a great game, definitely. I figured his +/- was going to be awful while watching, although I don't think it completely reflected how he played.

He may have not earned the hooking on the 5th goal, but it makes up for all the other ######## he's gotten away with. Which, by the way, is this quote: they're calling everything the hawks do to him. to get all of it, they've gotta be looking hard at him damn near all the time. really implying what I think it's implying?

Now that you're presumably sober, go back and read the last paragraph of steagles' 523. He doesn't have any mistaken impression of Pronger.

The first period was pretty damn amazing. And while some lapses followed, it was nice to see they avoided following it up with the total dogshit period that was an occasional problem during the regular season.

Sure was. They were clogging the passing lanes as the Flyers tried to break out exactly as the Flyers had in the previous two games. It was awesome, if you're a Hawks fan.

I meant to mention earlier and I forget which game I observed this, but it seemed like during the first period of one of the Hawk losses almost every breakout pass was played by the forward off their skates and onto their stick (or not). I'd noticed that the Hawks did this a lot, but not to that extent. It looked like showboating to me.

I didn't see it at all last night. If the pass came in tight, the hands came in to draw the stick to the puck instead of hacky sacking it.

The first period was pretty damn amazing. And while some lapses followed, it was nice to see they avoided following it up with the total dogshit period that was an occasional problem during the regular season.

This. That was the Blackhawks team I grew to expect during the regular season, and I was wondering where they went. They had been playing very tentative, defensive hockey for the first four games, letting the Flyers dictate the pace. This game they opened things up, and aside from a brief time in the second period, they dominated the puck. I hope they continue this on Wednesday.

how can the officials blow two so obvious high sticking calls, including one which would have been an obvious double minor with 10 minutes left?!?

High sticking must not be on the books. That was the third Hawk player WITH THE PUCK to get high sticked and not have it called. The refs this series have stunk, but that's what you get with Bill McCreary.

THIS is the Hawks team I expected, at least offensively.

Right. And I'm not going to get too hung up with the defensive breakdowns, because controlling the puck for long stretches is the best D anyway.

Buff's hit on Pronger was awesome.

I'm not sure I understand the fascination with Tomas Kopecky. He was essentially swapping in and out with Adam Burish, depending on how Quenneville felt in the morning, and now he's getting good minutes on one of the top three lines.

I like Kopecky. I think he's a hard nosed player that has some offensive skill. Brouwer seems more like a true grinder to me. Not as much passing skill, but maybe I'm wrong there. I think Kopecky's out there because Q wants some grinding with Hossa and Toews.

High sticking must not be on the books. That was the third Hawk player WITH THE PUCK to get high sticked and not have it called. The refs this series have stunk, but that's what you get with Bill McCreary.

And Briere was cut badly with 10 minutes left, they had to stop the action. Thats an obvious double minor, I mean, come on.

In the second period, the Flyers scored a goal (I think it was their second goal) where a Flyers player fell into the crease, and was actually halfway into the net. His teammate flipped the puck over his shoulder and into the net. How was that not interference?

since we've got a few days before the next game, i'm gonna take a quick look at the offseason.

asham is gone next year, and carcillo, coburn, and parent are RFAs. i'm not too sure about what to do with those last two. coburn's cap hit this year was 1.3 million, and that's gotta go up after this run. i'm not too sure by how much, though. admittedly, if someone tries to poach him as an RFA, i'd think very hard about letting him go. the flyers have lost a lot of picks over the last 3 years, and if it comes to recouping a 1 and a 3 or keeping coburn at a cost of 3-4 million (to be honest, i haven't kept up on the RFA rules, so i'm not sure where everything comes up), i might think hard about letting him go.

on defense, the flyers have two top prospects who played in the AHL last season, plus bartulis and parent who split time on the third pairing. i don't much like the idea of going in with just those 4 for the final 3-4 spots, but if the flyers could bring back someone like lasse kukkonen to play more steady 3rd pair minutes, that'd be big.

as for the forwards, with the emergence of claude giroux and ville leino, i'd kinda like to see the richards line turned into a checking line. there's enough offense on the 2nd and 3rd lines to allow gagne and richards to focus solely on being pests. there's not really a good fit on the RW for this line, but if they could bring in colton gillies, i'd be in the stratosphere. gillies hasn't really developed in MIN, but you can't teach 6'5", and his size with gagne's speed and richards' everything would make that line tremendous.

the second and third lines would figure to remain largely the same. hartnell and leino on briere's wing, with JVR and carter on giroux's. blair betts is under contract for 10-11, and i'm fine with him centering the 4th line. i think laperriere is back as well. for the last wing, there'd be carcillo, maroon, powe, matsumoto, cote, and nodl. i think carcillo would get that nod, unless he's looking for a significant raise.

goalie is kind of a toss up at this point. if the figure on coburn is correct, the team would be around 56 million in salary for 18 skaters. figure another 2 million for injury fill ins, and there's not much left for leighton.

if the team could somehow get out from simon gagne's contract (which will be in the final year), i'd gladly take the hit on offense to make a run at replacing braydon coburn with dan hamhuis. in that case, i'd look to recchi or tkachuk or maybe todd bertuzzi instead of gillies.

i think getting out from gagne or hartnell and upgrading the 4th-5th Dmen should be plan A this offseason. resigning leighton or finding a new #1 or a backup to boucher should be the second priority.

I think the Flyers are going to trade for Carey Price. It makes too much sense for everyone involved.

i think that might make more sense than going back to the leighton well if he wants to cash in a big contract, but i don't think going out and getting a goalie is a necessity at this point.

they've won 14 playoff games with boucher and leighton in net. they didn't do that on the strength of those two names, they did it because they're a very sound defensive team. that doesn't look like it'll change over the summer.

as i said, my priority would be to try to dump one of gagne or hartnell and to upgrade the 2nd and 3rd D pairings. i'd also like to get bigger up front, but with only 2 or 3 spots in flux, i don't know how possible that would be.

they've won 14 playoff games with boucher and leighton in net. they didn't do that on the strength of those two names, they did it because they're a very sound defensive team. that doesn't look like it'll change over the summer.

A sound defensive team that ranked 14th in the NHL in goals against (during the regular season)? I'm not saying you can't win a championship with a weak goalie -- the jury is still out on Niemi (or, in Philly's case, neither Boucher or Leighton is very good), and the Red Wings teams of the past couple years (although not this season) rode Chris Osgood to a title and three SCF wins -- but if you have the chance to upgrade at a non-exorbitant price, you have to do it. With regards to Price, the main guy at BehindtheNet has made the argument that Price and Halak are (at this point) equal goalies, and that Halak's perceived value is going to be lead to a contract well above his worth. As such, Price seems like an excellent "buy-low" candidate. In fact, if the Hawks could somehow get out from under Huet's deal, I'd love to see the Hawks try and snag him.

as i said, my priority would be to try to dump one of gagne or hartnell and to upgrade the 2nd and 3rd D pairings.

Does that say $4.2 million for Hartnell? It's safe to say you are stuck with him. He's not close to worth that, no matter how good he's looked this playoffs.

both contracts are quite bad, but it's not unreasonable to think hartnell is capable of earning his. he was #### this season, but he had 20 goals for each of the 4 previous, including a 30 goal, 60 point season just last year.

if a team is looking for a physical presence on a top 2 line, hartnell is that. he plays like a madman, and while that only works when he's putting the puck in the back of the net, he's also proven that he's capable of putting the puck in the back of the net.

A sound defensive team that ranked 14th in the NHL in goals against? I'm not saying you can't win a championship with a weak goalie -- the jury is still out on Niemi (or, in Philly's case, neither Boucher or Leighton is very good), and the Red Wings teams of the past couple years (although not this season) rode Chris Osgood to a title and three SCF wins -- but if you have the chance to upgrade at a non-exorbitant price, you have to do it. With regards to Price, the main guy at BehindtheNet has made the argument that Price and Halak are (at this point) equal goalies, and the Halak's perceived value is going to be lead to a contract well above his worth. As such, Price seems like an excellent "buy-low" candidate. In fact, if the Hawks could somehow get out from under Huet's deal, I'd love to see the Hawks try and snag him.

maybe it's wishful thinking, but i think next year's flyers team will look a whole lot more like the one in the playoffs than the one in the regular season. i don't think that'll be good enough to rest on, so yeah, they need to get better, but i think they have bigger priorities than finding another netminder. at least for now.

the team is good enough that they can make the playoffs with boucher in net next year. and if, at the deadline, they don't look good enough to win a title with him, they can make a move involving gagne's expiring contract and maybe JVR to pull the best available guy.

both contracts are quite bad, but it's not unreasonable to think hartnell is capable of earning his. he was #### this season, but he had 20 goals for each of the 4 previous, including a 30 goal, 60 point season just last year.

But 20 goals isn't worth $4 million. And yes, he's playing like a madman now, but you can't do that in the regular season. It's too long and grueling. He's worth a lot (but still not his contract) to teams that are this close to a Cup, and vastly overpaid for everyone else.

A sound defensive team that ranked 14th in the NHL in goals against?

Well, the regular season is a little misleading here. Pronger and Timonen aren't going to play 30 minutes a night in December.

both contracts are quite bad, but it's not unreasonable to think hartnell is capable of earning his. he was #### this season, but he had 20 goals for each of the 4 previous, including a 30 goal, 60 point season just last year.

But 20 goals isn't worth $4 million. And yes, he's playing like a madman now, but you can't do that in the regular season. It's too long and grueling. He's worth a lot (but still not his contract) to teams that are this close to a Cup, and vastly overpaid for everyone else.

i liked going out and getting him in 2008. i liked him last season. i like him this playoffs. if he's on this team next year, odds are i'd still like him, but i think this team has enough frontline talent that his salary would be better invested in a 4th or 5th or 6th D man that would make the team more positionally sound. i mentioned lasse kukkonen, but if they could bring in an anton volchenkov, a henrik talinder, or a dan hamhuis, that'd go a hell of a lot further.

Well, the regular season is a little misleading here. Pronger and Timonen aren't going to play 30 minutes a night in December.

That's a fair point, but I'm not sure it changes things. The Hawks are scoring 4.2 goals per game against Philly this series compared to 3.3 GPG during the regular season. And the three teams Philly played in their Eastern Conference run were all below average offensively, so I'm not sure how much you can glean from that.

Now that you're presumably sober, go back and read the last paragraph of steagles' 523. He doesn't have any mistaken impression of Pronger.

Fair enough, but in my defense, I was responding to a later post and in my condition wasn't linking the previous post in my mind. I was also a little wound up on the anthem thing, too, so just bumbled the posts into one anti-Steagles fauxrant.

Pronger didn't have a great game, definitely. I figured his +/- was going to be awful while watching, although I don't think it completely reflected how he played.

To an extent, I agree. He actually played worse than that - he was on the ice for 6 goals and the 7th was with him in the box. The Hawks completely neutralized him. As I said before, I don't expect that to continue - he's too good and it's not like he got washed up overnight.

I'm not sure I understand the fascination with Tomas Kopecky. He was essentially swapping in and out with Adam Burish, depending on how Quenneville felt in the morning, and now he's getting good minutes on one of the top three lines.

I like Kopecky. I think he's a hard nosed player that has some offensive skill. Brouwer seems more like a true grinder to me. Not as much passing skill, but maybe I'm wrong there. I think Kopecky's out there because Q wants some grinding with Hossa and Toews.

I feel like this is a officially a trend, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you Jimmy. I wouldn't say that Kopecky has much offensive skill, in spite of his game winner in game 1. Actually, I take that back; he looked like a playmaker in the Olympics paired with Hossa, but he hasn't shown that all this season. Maybe Q's hoping putting him with Hossa helps Hossa. But what it does is put a non-finisher out there with two playmakers. They're playing more like a checking line than the Bolland line, which had been the checking line. So there's no reason not to have Brouwer on that line instead. Kopecky is definitely an energy type, and I prefer seeing him out there than Burish.

I don't expect the lines to change much going into the game tomorrow, so I'm just hoping they can play with a similar type of urgency, even if it doesn't translate into as many goals early.

I'm not so sure I'd say Hossa is a pure playmaker. The guy has 3 40 goal seasons and 1 39 goal season to his credit.

Neither Kopecky or Brouwer's going to be anything great on offense (yes, I know Brouwer had 40 some points, I don't see much more growth in his game, though), so if Marian Hossa feels more comfortable with Kopecky out there, meet your new 1st line winger: Tomas Kopecky.

Right, because a crappy newspaper makes up a stupid poster, he's in our heads. I hope he's in the Hawks' heads as much tonight as he was in game 5.

---

I'm not so sure I'd say Hossa is a pure playmaker. The guy has 3 40 goal seasons and 1 39 goal season to his credit.

Neither Kopecky or Brouwer's going to be anything great on offense (yes, I know Brouwer had 40 some points, I don't see much more growth in his game, though), so if Marian Hossa feels more comfortable with Kopecky out there, meet your new 1st line winger: Tomas Kopecky.

We're talking past each other here. Hossa's primarily been a forechecker/playmaker so far in the playoffs, as he's been struggling to finish. And yes, Brower isn't exactly a goal machine, but the main point I'm trying to make is that he's a better finisher and better checker than Kopecky. And I'm not saying Hossa feels better with Kopecky out there, I'm just speculating. But if that's the only reason, then I disagree with it. Q has to coach based on results (and I guess which way the wind is blowing his mustache), and I've yet to see anything out of the Hossa/Kopecky pairing in a Blackhawks sweater.

Right, because a crappy newspaper makes up a stupid poster, he's in our heads. I hope he's in the Hawks' heads as much tonight as he was in game 5.

But, but, they called him by a girl's name. Is there any greater, more brilliantly cutting taunt than suggesting an athlete is, in fact, an icky girl? That's top notch stuff, right up there with the my city is better than your city stuff the Trib has perfected through the years.

I have a question for my fellow Chicagoans; which bothers you more: the bandwagon fans of the Hawks that hadn't watched a hockey game until a month ago, or the constant holier-than-thou whining about the bandwagon Hawks fans by "true" fans?

But, but, they called him by a girl's name. Is there any greater, more brilliantly cutting taunt than suggesting an athlete is, in fact, an icky girl? That's top notch stuff, right up there with the my city is better than your city stuff the Trib has perfected through the years.

I have a question for my fellow Chicagoans; which bothers you more: the bandwagon fans of the Hawks that hadn't watched a hockey game until a month ago, or the constant holier-than-thou whining about the bandwagon Hawks fans by "true" fans?

This used to bother me, but people like winners and will jump on and off the bandwagon based on how teams are playing -- it's a fact of life. I take comfort in the fact that sticking with them and following them through the wretched years of the early 2000s will make an eventual Cup victory (even if they go on two lose the next two) so much sweeter, and I doubt that satisfaction can be replicated. I'm extremely anxious about tonight -- I can only imagine what it's like for folks who have been following them much longer than I have.

I have a question for my fellow Chicagoans; which bothers you more: the bandwagon fans of the Hawks that hadn't watched a hockey game until a month ago, or the constant holier-than-thou whining about the bandwagon Hawks fans by "true" fans?

The latter, by far, at this point. EVERY city has bandwagon fans. At least there's a good excuse for a lot of the ones in Chicago. But I don't think there's as much complaining about the bandwagoning in Chicago; it's mostly coming from non-Hawks fans who are just jealous, I guess. Complaining about bandwagoners has so jumped the shark...

I'm not really a bandwagoner, but I am a latecomer. I relocated to the Chicago area in 2005. I wasn't about to change my baseball or football team preferences, and I've never given a crap about the NBA. So I kind of started following the Hawks. Attended my first hockey game in the 2006-07 season and my interest has grown each year. My youngest boy started following the game this year, so it's been fun rooting on the Blackhawks together. I'm enjoying this run, but I do think it would be even more meaningful to me if I had a long history following the club.

At times, mostly out of a sense of nostalgia, part of me longs for the return of the days when a good pre-season from Jeff Hamilton and Pavel Vorobiev was cause for optimism.

That's not really true, those were very pathetic teams. But it has been fun to watch this team grow over the years. I started really following the team during the 2001-02 season. The worst part of the last few years wasn't the sparse attendence, IMO; I hated going to Hawks-Wings games and 70% of the folks there were Wings' fans. Hated that.

I think there's a difference between other examples of bandwagon fans and the Blackhawks. Lots of people in New England liked the Red Sox before 2004, so virtually the only people who hopped on the bandwagon were people who didn't really like baseball/sports at all. Surprisingly they tended to not know anything about baseball and be annoying. Plenty of people in Chicago were Blackhawk fans in the past, they just weren't going to support the team until their parsimonious snit of an owner croaked. I recall that fan support started coming back almost immediately after Bill Wirtz died.

Plenty of people in Chicago were Blackhawk fans in the past, they just weren't going to support the team until their parsimonious snit of an owner croaked. I recall that fan support started coming back almost immediately after Bill Wirtz died.
I recall that fan support started coming back almost immediately after Bill Wirtz died.

Absolutely. The speed in which the Chicagoland area re-embraced the Hawks was astounding considering the old man's disdainful treatment of the fan base.

Well, you all basically echoed my feelings (and the response I expected). While I can't claim to have followed the Hawks closely the last decade, I at least watched casually and followed the rest of the league superficially. When I moved back to the city in 2007, I started going to games with my dad (including the Hull/Mikita tribute night, which was amazing), and began to truly follow. So while I'm not a bandwagoner, I don't have a especially long history with the team.

With regards to the quick re-embrace, I'd say Rocky's extreme fan-friendliness, especially relative to his father, was a key part of that.

not sure about it being boarding, caught that on the radio. they missed a high stick on the pp before they scored the goal, and the pp that got the goal was a bs call but its all even after 1 so it doesnt matter

it'd be a massive coup if the flyers could pull this one out and send the series back to chicago. they're getting killed here, and anytime krajicek is on the ice it's 45 seconds of offense for chicago.

Absolutely. The speed in which the Chicagoland area re-embraced the Hawks was astounding considering the old man's disdainful treatment of the fan base.

Count me as one of them. I got into hockey and the Hawks in the early '80s, back in the "Cold Steel on Ice" days -- Savard, Secord, Larmer, et al. I loved it, but sometime in the late '80s lost touch and stayed that way for about 20 years.

I started paying attention again last year, right around the time they played Detroit in the Winter Classic at Wrigley. It's been great since then.

The best thing about the Hawks run is that it's like a family reunion -- all the souls who have lost touch with the team over the past 50 years, for whatever reason, are all finding joy. Yes, there is some element of bandwagoning, but it's not at all like what it would be if the Cubs won (and I'm a Cubs fan).